Milo, gshulz, the "covers" you are talking about are considered the landing gear doors, just as much as the hinged parts are. Call them covers, or doors, the semantics of it don't matter. Considering they are the only covering we have on our K-4, and you were saying the covering on our K-4 shouldn't be there, one can only assume you were making the statement that these shouldn't be there.
gshulz, if you read my post you would have noticed I also pointed out that HTC has already modeled the aircraft without the outer-hinged doors, and that drag is already a factor in this game. This is directly worth commenting about because YOU'RE the one saying what we have isn't representative... When some of your points are not logical, it is worth commenting on.
Wmaker: Thanks for the clarification of the glass armor. I was mixing up my details for a moment. There was a very legitimate reason to remove the 30mm at the time. Of the 7500+ G-6s built, only 1500 or so received the Mk108, and those were predominantly in 1944. That leaves almost a year where the G-6 served that we couldn't use it (again, at the time) because the 30mm gun option totally unbalanced it. It was like subbing a 110G for a 110C. Checking the numbers, in the entire first year of production, a smaller percentage received Mk108s than did 109Fs that were capable of carrying gondolas. In all of 1943, only 181 G6/U4 were delivered. Of those, the first 60 were developmental and still working out how to install them. It was only after the 60th that the weapons were installed on the production lines. Of those, the first batches were shipped without cannons and everything had to be worked out with testing, especially ground-firing tests. These were not combat craft. The number of G6/U4s in 1943 to see any actual combat is probably smaller than a statistical margin for error.
You, yourself, once said that the graphics on our 109G-6 are almost entirely an early model, save for the glass armor. I pulled up the quote. You said if that armor were changed it would totally be an early model. You said that was only put in at player request after seeing screenshots of the metal armor. That suggests the intent was for an early model, since it originally had the metal armor. Further: considering that most G-6s that did receive a Mk108 did so in 1944, it makes more sense that these G6/U4 would have 1944-specific performance, such as MW50 (which became common place in Summer 1944). That would be more fitting of a G-14 designation. There are probably a few other performance enhancements through 1944 (higher takeoff settings, less restrictions on power ratings for the engine, etc). Looking at HTC's speed chart it definitely looks like we have an early variant, as it's much slower than a normal (read: "later") g-6 ought to be. At 1.42ata and 2800rpm a clean G-6 should easily break 400mph. Ours is at least 10mph too slow to represent a 1944 G-6.
NOW, we currently have a CM command tool that will allow disabling of certain loadouts in the SEA events. In theory, you could add the 30mm. However, overall isn't it far more desirable to have a period-specific model with period-specific (and representative?) armaments? Such as the Spit Mk.Vb? And then, when you need a later-era armament option, you can simply choose another airframe specific to that? Such as the 1942-era Spit Mk.IX? Instead of adding the Mk.IXs weapons loadouts to the Vbs airframe? I feel that our G-6 doesn't need a Mk108 option, and IMO based on HTCs efforts and intent it is clear they wanted a time-specific variant which didn't have one.
The answer is: yes, it is more desirable to have specific time-frames in mind when modeling any particular plane variant. It is less desirable to have weapons spanning multiple time-frames on a fixed-time plane variant.
P.S. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall Pyro or somebody saying the tail wheel on our G-6 is purely a graphics issue, and the flight model is still built upon a fixed tail wheel.
P.P.S. Mk108s did get off to a rocky start, but by Summer 1944 they were so common that EVERY plane in the arsenal was carrying them. It was the primary armament on every fighter designed (unless the Mk103 was the primary -- in which case often the Mk108 filled in because that wasn't ready). From 190A8s to 190D-9 and later marks, to all subsequent Bf109 variants, to the Ta152s, to to 110Gs, to almost all the figher jets, to the Ta154, He219, Ju388, even the what-if pipe dream planes were being designed to carry the Mk108s. Not to mention every night fighter had at least a couple pairs of them (often designed with 2 or 4 firing upwards, and 2 firing forwards). There were enough of them that not only did they put them on every fighter plane currently in use, they also exported them to allies. The Hungarians even got Mk108 upgrade kits to keep their aging Bf109s competitive against the allies. I would suggest that logistics became more of a problem, rather than supply. The guns were available, but getting them where they were needed ON TIME may have been difficult. There were many cases where they had to be converted after leaving the factory. Even later K-4s initially had to have a small number converted to Mk108s.
edit: typo fix
